In light of the abuse allegations leveled against
Woody Allen by his daughter Dylan Farrow in the New York Times, the Hollywood press immediately began
showing sympathy for the those who have the most to lose in this awful situation: Cate Blanchett and Blue
Jasmine's Oscar chances.

Is Cate Blanchett's best actress Oscar for
her performance in Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine as assured as most
people believe? Probably — but being called out on the New York Times'
website for associating with an alleged child molester certainly won't help her
cause.

No, those allegations generally don't help many
causes. But, if you're Feinberg, the most important cause at hand is Cate Blanchett. And asking questions like, why would a young woman ever want to admit alleged abuse unless she wanted to ruin a movie starring Cate Blanchett?

Advertisement

The question of the minds of many is why Farrow,
who has heretofore maintained a low public profile, would choose to publicly
discuss her history with Allen now? The timing and focus of her piece
certainly suggest, to me, that she would like to derail any chance that Allen
or those associated with him on his latest film, Blue Jasmine, have of
receiving additional awards recognition at the Oscars on March 2.

These questions, of course, completely gloss over
the fact the allegations were first made public in 1993 and again last year in
a Vanity Fair profile and are in no
way new or now. Or that if ruining
Oscars was her thing, Farrow could have a field day with 2011's Midnight in Paris. But those facts don't
matter because what about Blanchett? We can't forget about Blanchett.

Only Farrow herself can say what her objective
was in writing this piece when and how she did. But, whether intended or not,
the byproduct of her actions may well be that some Academy members will think
twice before supporting Allen or those who have chosen to associate with him on
Blue Jasmine when they fill out their Oscar ballots. And while that
won't matter much for Allen and Hawkins' prospects — they were both considered
to be long shots well before this brouhaha — it could, conceivably, make the
road to victory for Blanchett, who is a heavy favorite — having already won
best actress Critics' Choice, Golden Globe and SAG, New York Film Critics
Circle, Los Angeles Film Critics Association and National Society of Film
Critics awards — a little bumpier.

Only in Hollywood—the land where everyone hates
priests but loves Michael Jackson and Roman Polanski—are conversations about alleged sexual abuse characterized as bumpy "brouhahas." The Wrap'sSteve Pond at least had the decency to admit that asking questions
about Blanchett's chances is an "uncomfortable" act.

On Saturday night, Blanchett herself responded
to questions about Farrow's statement, and managed to do so without mentioning
awards season, presumably because she has a functional brain. "I mean, it's obviously been a
long and painful situation for the family, and I hope they find some sort of
resolution and peace," she said.

Alec Baldwin, who was also called
out in Farrow's statement for his association with Allen, took to Twitter on
Sunday with his own compelling
stance on the controversy: "What
the f&@% is wrong w u that u think we all need to b commenting on this
family's personal struggle?" he tweeted. "So you know who's guilty? Who's
lying? You, personally, know that?" he continued, adding: "You are mistaken if
you think there is a place for me, or any outsider, in this family's issue." He
later deleted his responses.

No one knows where the truth lies in this
situation, but the knee-jerk responses to defend Allen, call out "liars," and worry about how
allegations—allegations for which he cannot be
charged—will impact a stupid award is ridiculous. Those in Hollywood
who are framing the situation as a premeditated awards-season attack on Allen
shows just how far the industry will go to avoid uncomfortable conversations
and defend their gods.